CHICAGO — After urging Illinoisans last month to record concerning actions by federal agents, Gov. JB Pritzker signed an executive order Thursday creating a commission to review documentation submitted by the public.

“The federal government has chosen to treat the people of this country as an adversary,” Pritzker said of the Trump administration’s “Operation Midway Blitz” targeting the Chicago area. “We will not meet intimidation with fear. We will meet it with truth.”

The newly formed Illinois Accountability Commission has been charged by Pritzker to create a public record of abuses, document the impact of those abuses on families and communities, and recommend actions for justice and reducing future harm.

The commission will investigate past actions by federal officials, according to its chair, U.S. District Judge Rubén Castillo, including the fatal shooting of unarmed father and Mexican immigrant Silverio Villegas González by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer after dropping off his two young sons at school and daycare in the Chicago area.

“There are serious questions about that shooting and that killing,” Castillo said of Villegas González, adding the commission would “certainly” investigate further.

Castillo also indicated the commission would also look into the Oct. 4 shooting of 30-year-old Marimar Martinez by a Border Patrol agent in Brighton Park.

Castillo added that the commission would seek to determine whether agents in those cases had faced any disciplinary action, referencing officials’ Oct. 9 statement to U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis that no agents had been disciplined for violating internal use-of-force policies.

Holding up a framed copy of the Oct. 15 edition of the Chicago Sun-Times as a “trial exhibit,” Castillo likened the commission to a lighthouse, saying it would “shed light on darkness” and act as a beacon for truth.

Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton echoed the analogy and invoked the spirit of investigative journalist and civil rights activist Ida B. Wells-Barnett, who famously called on the light of truth to right wrongs in the 1890s and early 1900s.

“This is not law enforcement. This is not public safety. This is state-sanctioned cruelty without accountability, and the state of Illinois will not let this continue in darkness,” Stratton said.

The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, or ICIRR, has mobilized volunteer rapid response teams to document and alert Illinois communities about ICE activity. ICIRR Executive Director Lawrence Benito said the organization received over 8,000 calls in October alone.

Benito identified Chicago’s southwest and northwest sides, Waukegan, Elgin, Cicero, Bolingbrook and Joliet as hotspots for those calls.

“It is increasingly clear that (President Donald) Trump and his cronies are turning the federal government into a weapon against our people,” Benito said. “And together, we are fighting back.”

Also joining Pritzker on stage was Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, a network of attorneys providing pro bono legal resources to immigrants in the U.S.

McCarthy said she worked with local communities in Chile in the 1980s, helping safeguard the rights of individuals under the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. She likened the commission’s role to that of the Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, which issued a report documenting human rights violations.

The commission formed by the executive order is tasked with providing an initial public report on its findings and recommendations to the governor no later than Jan. 31.

“The executive order will protect the rule of law,” McCarthy said. “I believe that the commission will become an invaluable resource in America’s quest for justice and durable human rights protections.”

Pritzker told Illinoisans to “stay tuned” on the commission’s website for information on how to submit documentation. He encouraged people to keep taking videos, calling it “a protest of itself” to record federal agents acting unlawfully.

The commission will not have subpoena power, Pritzker clarified, but said it will invite people to provide testimony. Castillo added that the commission would work with its attorneys to protect the private identity of civilians involved in incidents.

Before signing the order, the governor reflected on a quote by civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., who stated that the moral arc of history is long, but bends toward justice.

“It doesn’t feel in this moment like we’re bending toward justice,” Pritzker said. “Indeed, I guess I would offer humbly and amendment to say, it only bends toward justice if we bend it that way.”

Contact the commission at https://ilac.illinois.gov

Maggie Dougherty is a freelance reporter covering the Chicago area.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The post Pritzker forms independent commission to document misconduct of federal agents first appeared on SJO Daily.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office following the Diwali festivities, Trump confirmed he could be pursuing the massive payout but claimed to have limited knowledge of the specifics. “It could be,” Trump said when asked about the $230 million figure reported by The New York Times. “I don’t know what the numbers are. I don’t even talk to them about it. All I know is they would owe me a lot of money.”

The unprecedented situation stems from two separate administrative claims filed by Trump’s attorneys in 2023 and 2024 while he was out of office. These complaints serve as precursors to potential lawsuits against the federal government.​

The first claim, submitted in late 2023, seeks damages for alleged violations of Trump’s rights during the FBI and special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential ties between his presidential campaign and the Russian government.​

The second complaint, filed in summer 2024, relates to the classified documents case. Trump alleges that the FBI violated his privacy rights when agents searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida in August 2022, and that he was subjected to malicious prosecution by then-special counsel Jack Smith after being charged with mishandling sensitive government documents following his departure from office.​

The situation presents extraordinary ethical challenges, as Trump now controls the very government department tasked with evaluating his compensation claims. “With the country, it’s interesting because I’m the one that makes the decision,” Trump acknowledged during his remarks. “It’s awfully hard to make a decision where I’m paying myself. In other words, did I have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you’re paying yourself in damages?”​

Any settlement would require approval from senior Justice Department officials, several of whom previously served as Trump’s defense attorneys or represented his allies during these very investigations. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, for instance, was Trump’s personal defense attorney in these matters, while another top official, Stanley Woodward Jr., represented Trump’s associates.​​

On October 23, 2025, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin and House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia sent a letter to President Trump demanding full disclosure of his administrative claims and characterizing the compensation effort as unconstitutional.

In their letter, Raskin and Garcia argued that Trump’s plan to receive $230 million from the federal government violates the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the President from receiving any payment from the federal government or states beyond the presidential salary of $400,000 per year.

“The Founders feared presidents like you might one day be tempted to use their powers to steal U.S. taxpayer funds,” the letter states. “That’s why they enshrined a very simple rule into the Constitution, which is called the Domestic Emoluments Clause. As President, you may not receive any payment from the federal government or any of the states, except for your salary.”

The Democratic lawmakers emphasized that this constitutional prohibition is “categorical” and “not even waivable by Congress,” distinguishing it from the Foreign Emoluments Clause where Congress can approve otherwise prohibited gifts.

The congressional letter provides specific details about one of Trump’s administrative claims:

• $85 million sought in punitive damages from the federal government
• $15 million sought in compensatory damages for the cost of defending against Special Counsel proceedings

Notably, the letter points out that punitive damages are “expressly prohibited” under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the legal mechanism Trump is using to pursue his claims.

The lawmakers also noted that Trump’s second claim “is not even public,” raising transparency concerns about the scope of his demands from the federal government.

The Democratic representatives accused Trump of deliberately waiting until he became President to pursue these claims through his appointed DOJ officials rather than litigating them publicly in court.

“If either of your claims had any merit, you could have taken them to court by now and litigated them publicly,” the letter states. “You did not do that. Instead, you waited until you became President and installed your handpicked loyalists at DOJ, knowing that you could instruct them to co-sign your demand notes in secret behind closed doors, and then you could present the notes to the U.S. Treasury for cold hard cash courtesy of the American taxpayer. That isn’t justice, it is theft.”

The congressional Democrats are demanding that Trump produce extensive documentation by 5:00 p.m. on October 30, 2025, including:

1. All administrative claims filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, including all documentation, exhibits, affidavits, and evidence
2. All correspondence between Trump or his representatives and DOJ officials regarding the claims, over both official and personal channels
3. All correspondence between White House officials and DOJ officials regarding the claims
4. All DOJ memoranda and legal analyses concerning:
   • The legal merits of the claims
   • The prohibition on punitive damages under the FTCA
   • Constitutional implications under the Domestic Emoluments Clause
   • Ethical propriety of Trump’s former personal attorneys making decisions on his claims
   • Conflicts of interest and recusal obligations
   • Any other aspect of the administrative claims
5. All documents identifying which DOJ officials have been assigned to evaluate Trump’s claims, including recusal determinations and ethics guidance

The letter was copied to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, both Republicans who would need to authorize any formal committee action on the requests.

The letter frames Trump’s compensation pursuit as occurring “at a time when most Americans are struggling to pay rent, put food on the table, and afford health care,” emphasizing the political optics of a wealthy president seeking hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds.

Raskin and Garcia urged Trump to “renounce your plan publicly and assure the American people that their President is not pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars at their expense,” framing the issue as one of public trust and constitutional governance.

The post Trump: “I’m Sort of Suing Myself” as He Considers $230 Million DOJ Payout Over Federal Investigations first appeared on SJO Daily.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that Johnson is unconstitutionally denying Arizona its full congressional representation by blocking Grijalva from taking the oath of office, despite her undisputed election victory and constitutional qualifications.​​

Grijalva won a special election on September 23, 2025, to represent Arizona’s 7th Congressional District with nearly 69% of the vote. The election was officially certified by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes on October 14.​​

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, is leading the lawsuit, which names the House of Representatives, House Clerk Kevin McCumber, and Sergeant at Arms William McFarland as defendants. The complaint argues that Johnson’s delay violates both constitutional principles and the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Powell v. McCormack, which held that the House cannot exclude a duly elected member who meets all constitutional qualifications.​​

The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that would allow Grijalva to be deemed a member of the House once she takes the oath, and that if Johnson refuses to administer it, any person authorized by law to administer oaths may do so.​

Johnson sent the House home on September 19 after passing a short-term funding measure, and has repeatedly extended what was supposed to be a weeklong break.​

Johnson has stated he will swear in Grijalva only when the House returns to “regular session” after the government shutdown ends and Senate Democrats agree to Republican funding terms.

Democrats have pointed out that during Johnson’s tenure as Speaker, he has consistently sworn in special election winners immediately—including two Florida Republicans in April 2025 who were sworn in during a pro forma session within 24 hours of their victories.​​

Democrats have accused Johnson of delaying Grijalva’s seating because she would provide the 218th and decisive signature on a discharge petition to force a House vote on releasing Department of Justice files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Johnson has repeatedly denied this is the reason for the delay.​

Grijalva has emphasized that the delay is preventing her from serving her constituents in Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, which spans the state’s southern border with Mexico and includes parts of Tucson and Phoenix, representing more than 800,000 people.​

The post Arizona Sues House Speaker Mike Johnson for Blocking Swearing-In of Rep.-Elect Adelita Grijalva first appeared on SJO Daily.

The highlight of the weekend will be the national premiere of the official documentary Dick Van Dyke: 100th Celebration, created by Emmy-winning filmmakers Steve Boettcher and Michael Trinklein. The feature-length film weaves together clips from Van Dyke’s classic work across television and film, heartfelt interviews with the entertainer and his legendary co-stars, and a touching visit to his Danville roots. The film will debut nationally through Fathom Entertainment in theaters across the country on December 13 and 14, coinciding with Van Dyke’s 100th birthday weekend.

The Danville premiere will headline Saturday evening’s festivities, which begin with hors d’oeuvres from The Local, musical performances by members of the Danville Symphony Orchestra, and a live art demonstration by local artist Katie Weston, who will create a date-stamped portrait of Van Dyke during the event. The evening will also feature surprise announcements, themed cocktails, and the opportunity to explore the Fischer’s extensive collection of Dick Van Dyke memorabilia and photographs.

Sunday’s lineup features a full day of film screenings celebrating Van Dyke’s legendary career:

• 11:00 AM — Bye Bye Birdie
• 2:30 PM — The Comic
• 6:00 PM — Mary Poppins

Before each screening, Chicago and Central Illinois film critic Chuck Koplinski will share behind-the-scenes stories and anecdotes about the featured films. Afterward, audiences can engage with him in short Q&A sessions, adding a personal and interactive touch to the experience.

Festival attendees will also enjoy additional highlights throughout the weekend:

• A large community “birthday card” canvas available for signatures and well-wishes, which will be mailed to Van Dyke after the event.
• Commemorative t-shirts, original artwork by John Jansky, and themed trivia activities.
• Fischer concessions available both days for moviegoers.

Tickets and event information for FischerFest are available through the Fischer Theatre box office.

The post Danville to Celebrate Dick Van Dyke’s 100th Birthday with National Film Premiere and Festival first appeared on SJO Daily.

Guests can discover what Parkland has to offer through its academic programs, campus life, support services, and more from noon to 2 p.m. in the Student Union, Health Professions and 

Career and Technical Education facilities on the main campus, and Health Professions labs at the Parkland College on Mattis building.

The event allows guests to tour campus and have their questions answered from many Parkland representatives, including those from Accessibility Services, Admissions and Records, Agriculture, Applied Sciences and Technologies, Arts and Sciences, Aviation, Business and Computer Science, Financial Aid, Health Professions, Natural Sciences, and more.

The Health Professions portion of the open house will take place in the L wing of the campus and at the Parkland on Mattis building. The Dental Hygiene, Nursing, Practical Nursing, Radiologic Technology, Respiratory Care, Surgical Technology, and Veterinary Technology programs will be featured in the L wing.

The Parkland on Mattis building will feature Emergency Medical Services, Fire Service, Highway Construction, Medical Assisting, Nursing Assistant, and Occupational Therapy programs.

Parkland’s Career and Technical Education division will host scheduled tours of its facilities and equipment labs in the B wing of the main campus and in the Parkhill Applied Technology Center and Tony Noel Agricultural Technology Applications Center on the west side of campus. Faculty and departmental staff will be on hand to answer questions about programs and training opportunities.

There will be a shuttle service from the main campus to the other buildings. The event will also include an optional main campus walking tour with student ambassadors.

Register for the open house at parkland.edu/openhouse.

For more information, contact Admissions and Records at 217/351-2482 or admissions@parkland.edu.

The post Parkland College to Welcome Future Students, Families for Fall 2025 Open House first appeared on SJO Daily.

CHICAGO — The Trump administration has agreed to extend a federal judge’s temporary block on deploying National Guard troops to Chicago while the U.S. Supreme Court weighs whether to stay the judge’s order.

In a filing Tuesday — two days before U.S. District Judge April Perry’s 14-day temporary restraining order is set to expire — Department of Justice attorneys said they’d consented to a 30-day extension of the order. The Trump administration appealed the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court late last week, and it’s unclear when the high court may rule.

Read more: Trump asks U.S. Supreme Court to allow National Guard deployment in Illinois

In its filing to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued the judicial branch has no right to “second guess” a president’s judgment on national security matters or resulting military actions. The administration maintains National Guard deployment is necessary to protect federal immigration agents and property from protesters.

“A federal district court lacks not only the authority but also the competence to wrest control of the military chain of command from the Commander in Chief,” he wrote.

Read more: Immigration officials seek to justify use of force on Chicago-area protesters | Judge grants restraining order protecting protesters, journalists in Chicago-area protests

Lawyers for the state of Illinois shot back in its own filing Monday, citing two U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the last century, including one “invalidating presidential seizure of steel mills during the Korean War.”

“Furthermore, ‘federal courts are fully empowered to consider’ claims ‘resulting from military intrusion into the civilian sector,’” lawyers in Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office wrote, citing a 1972 decision. “There are numerous indications that the questions presented here … fall within this duty.”

President Donald Trump’s Oct. 4 order to federalize, or take control of, 300 members of the Illinois National Guard, along with the deployment of 200 Texas guardsmen and another 16 troops from California, has been blocked since Perry’s Oct. 9 ruling.

Read more: Illinois sues to block Trump’s National Guard deployment to Chicago | Over Pritzker’s objections, Trump sending 300 National Guardsmen to Chicago, governor says

The judge said the Department of Justice’s arguments of violence added to a “growing body of evidence that (Department of Homeland Security’s)  version of events are unreliable” as the administration’s narrative about “violent” protests in Chicago differed so strongly from the accounts of state and local law enforcement.

Perry also found there was “no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois.” The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals backed up Perry last week, with a three-judge panel writing in an opinion published Thursday that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

Read more: Judge calls feds ‘unreliable,’ temporarily blocks National Guard deployment to Illinois | Former military leaders decry National Guard deployment in Illinois

The three-judge appeals panel did stay the portion of Perry’s order blocking the administration from federalizing National Guard troops. But the administration accused the 7^th circuit of “judicially micromanaging the exercise of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers” as the appellate judges still sided with Perry on the actual deployment of guardsmen.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The post Trump agrees to extend judge’s block on deploying National Guard as Supreme Court weighs case first appeared on SJO Daily.

The brief centers on Trump’s October 2025 order federalizing up to 300 Illinois National Guard members and 400 Texas Guard troops for deployment to the Chicago area, ostensibly to protect federal immigration enforcement operations. Both a federal district judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit blocked the deployment, ruling that the administration failed to meet the legal requirements under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which permits federalization only in cases of rebellion or when the president cannot execute federal laws with regular forces.

The courts found no credible evidence of rebellion in Illinois. As the Seventh Circuit stated, “The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority.” The district court noted that while there have been “acts of vandalism, civil disobedience, and even assaults on federal agents,” the situation did not justify military intervention.

The Illinois case represents the latest in a series of controversial National Guard deployments by the Trump administration in 2025. The pattern began in June when Trump federalized California’s National Guard to Los Angeles—marking the first time in U.S. history a president invoked Section 12406 over a governor’s objections. A federal court subsequently ruled that deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from acting as domestic law enforcement absent express congressional authorization.​​

Since then, the administration has deployed Guard troops to Washington D.C., Memphis, Portland, and now Chicago—all over local officials’ objections. Trump has publicly threatened similar deployments to Baltimore, New Orleans, and St. Louis.

The amicus brief, signed by officials who served under presidents from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama, presents three principal arguments against the deployments:​

Diversion from Core Mission: The brief argues that domestic law enforcement deployments divert Guard members from their primary duties of national security and disaster response. When California troops were federalized for Los Angeles operations, they were pulled from wildfire protection, leaving specialized fire units at 40% strength during peak wildfire season. Similarly, South Carolina sent Guard members out of state during hurricane season for the D.C. deployment.

Lack of Proper Training: The military leaders emphasized that Guard personnel receive minimal training in domestic law enforcement techniques such as de-escalation, use of non-lethal force, and constitutional protections for civilians. As one federal court noted, “Members of the National Guard generally do not receive training to perform local law enforcement tasks.”

Risk of Politicization: Perhaps most significantly, the brief argues that deploying troops for domestic political purposes threatens the military’s apolitical tradition and public trust. The officials cited instances where Trump has publicly attacked political opponents while addressing troops in uniform and warned that protests at a military parade would “be met with very big force.”

“Over the centuries, American political and military leaders ingrained in the U.S. military a nonpartisan commitment to support and defend not any person or party but the Constitution itself,” the brief states. Politicization risks harming recruitment, retention, morale, and the military’s ability to maintain broad public support.​

National Guard documents from the D.C. deployment revealed “mentions of fatigue, confusion, and demoralization” among troops, with concerns about an “unclear mission” and driving a “wedge between citizens and the military.”

Central to the legal arguments is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which codified the longstanding American tradition against using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Act prohibits using federal military forces to “execute the laws” except when “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress”.​​

The law permits exceptions for extraordinary circumstances, such as when a president lawfully invokes the Insurrection Act to address civil unrest—as President George H.W. Bush did during the 1992 Los Angeles riots at the governor’s request. However, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act for these deployments.​

When Guard troops are federalized, they become legally equivalent to active-duty forces and are therefore subject to Posse Comitatus restrictions.

As of October 21, 2025, the Supreme Court has not acted on the stay request, though Justice Amy Coney Barrett directed an unusually fast briefing schedule—requiring Illinois’s response by Monday, October 20 at 5 p.m.. Once the Trump administration submitted its reply to those filings, the Court indicated it could act “at any time.”

The post Former Military Leaders Warn Supreme Court Against Trump’s National Guard Deployments in Amicus Brief first appeared on SJO Daily.

Images show heavy machinery tearing into the East Wing facade, with construction equipment ripping down the covered entrance that has welcomed visitors for decades for tours and special events.

“The ballroom is going to be beautiful. So, you’ll have drinks, cocktails, and everything else on this floor. And then they’ll say welcome to dinner. You walk into the ballroom, Mr. Senators, and you’re going to see a ballroom, the likes of which I don’t think will — I don’t think it’ll be topped. It’ll be — it’ll be the finest,” Trump said during an event honoring Louisiana State University baseball champions in the East Room.

On Truth Social, Trump announced that “ground has been broken” on the “new, big, beautiful White House Ballroom,” declaring it a project that “every President has dreamt about having” for more than 150 years. He emphasized that the ballroom would come at “zero cost to the American Taxpayer,” being “privately funded by many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly.”

There is no historical documentation that presidents over the past 150 years have “dreamt about” or consistently desired a dedicated ballroom at the White House. The desire for larger entertaining space appears to be primarily a Trump priority dating back approximately 15 years, not a longstanding presidential aspiration spanning a century and a half. 

While Trump has not disclosed the amount of money he is contributing to the project, several high-profile donors, all of whom are looking for something from the Trump administration, have contributed to the ballroom and other ventures the President has asked them to.

The only corporation that has been named is YouTube, giving a $22 million settlement with Trump for banning his account to the ballroom project. Trump addressed other donors at a dinner with Blackstone, OpenAI, Microsoft, Coinbase, Palantir, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Amazon and Google in attendance.

Trump told many of these donors at an October 15 dinner, “So many of you have been really, really generous.” Discussions have included potentially engraving donor names inside the White House or listing them on a website as recognition, though no final decision has been made on this matter.

The East Wing was originally constructed in 1902 under Theodore Roosevelt and underwent a major renovation in 1942 under Franklin D. Roosevelt, when a second story was added. Built atop a bomb shelter that houses the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), the structure has traditionally served as the operational hub for the first lady and her staff.​

The East Wing contains the Office of the First Lady, including positions such as the Chief of Staff, Communications Director, and Social Secretary, along with the White House Travel Office and White House Military Office. Staff members from First Lady Melania Trump’s office began relocating in preparation for the demolition earlier in October.​

Trump initially pledged in July that his ballroom project “won’t interfere with the current building,” stating it would be “near it, but not touching it—and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of.” However, by Monday’s demolition, Trump characterized the East Wing as “completely separate from the White House itself” and announced it would be “fully modernized as part of this process.”

The planned White House State Ballroom will span 90,000 square feet and accommodate between 650 to 999 guests.

Architectural renderings released by McCrery Architects depict a lavish neoclassical interior featuring gold chandeliers, coffered ceilings with gold inlays, ornate Corinthian columns, checkered marble floors, and three walls of arched windows overlooking the South Lawn. Trump indicated the ballroom will be equipped with bulletproof glass windows on all sides.

Clark Construction, awarded the contract in August 2025, leads the construction team, with AECOM providing engineering support. The project is expected to be complete in Jan. 2026.

The post White House East Wing Demolition Begins for Trump’s $250 Million Ballroom first appeared on SJO Daily.

CHICAGO — Federal immigration enforcement officials overseeing the Trump administration’s ongoing “Operation Midway Blitz” in the Chicago area testified Monday that all uses of aggressive crowd control tactics on protesters in recent weeks have been justified.

The officials, who were ordered to appear in court, told U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis that no agents have violated internal use-of-force policies in clashes with protesters, nor had any been disciplined for it. They also said agents’ use of tear gas on members of the public was warranted in two incidents last week — despite the judge’s Oct. 9 temporary restraining order forbidding the use of chemical irritants on demonstrators.

Read more: Judge grants restraining order protecting protesters, journalists in Chicago-area clashes

Ellis questioned Customs and Border Patrol Deputy Incident Commander Kyle Harvick for two hours. Harvick said spontaneous protests by members of the public who happen to witness immigration enforcement actions can quickly become dangerous for agents.

“We have found that the longer we loiter on the scene and subjects come — if they’re just protesting our presence, that’s fine,” he said. “But if others come who are assaultive, it gets more and more dangerous.”

Ellis’ order prohibits immigration agents from using “riot control weapons” like tear gas without giving at least two separate warnings loud enough for the crowd to hear and allowing for “reasonable time and opportunity for individuals to voluntarily comply.”

The judge’s temporary restraining order defines a crowd dispersal order as a federal agent’s “lawful command … for all persons to leave a designated area when three or more persons are committing acts of disorderly conduct that are likely to cause substantial harm.”

‘Profound concerns’

In an emergency hearing Thursday, Ellis told attorneys for the Trump administration that after seeing news about two separate incidents earlier in the week, she had “profound concerns” that her order wasn’t being followed.

On both Oct. 12 and Oct. 14, CBP agents deployed tear gas on protesters after the immigration enforcement actions attracted crowds in neighborhoods on Chicago’s Northwest Side and Southeast Side.

“I’m not blind,” she said.

Harvick said that on Oct. 12, residents linked arms to block CBP agents from arresting their neighbor, which Harvick described as “active resistance.”

“They were given lawful orders to get out of our way so we could depart and continue with our duties, which they disobeyed,” he said. “Multiple times.”

Harvick said CBP’s team lead at the scene made the call to deploy tear gas and that the crowd was warned to heed the agents’ dispersal orders before the canister was thrown toward protesters. One member of the crowd threw the canister back toward agents, he said.

When Ellis asked whether the protesters had thrown anything at the feds, Harvick said he was told objects were “thrown at some point” and CBP “vehicles were banged on.” According to reporting from Block Club Chicago, the agents left shortly after.

Harvick said his understanding of the incident relied on a discussion with that same team lead.

“When you spoke with him, did you have any concern that the requirements of the TRO were not being followed?” Ellis asked.

“I did not, your honor,” Harvick said.

“Can you tell me why you believed it was appropriate in that instance to release CS (tear) gas?” the judge asked.

“So first of all, that scene was an enforcement action,” Harvick said. “This wasn’t a planned protest … If you’re at site of a planned protest, you’re equipped differently. You have helmet, a gas mask.”

In a separated incident on Oct. 14, Harvick said two people suspected of being undocumented immigrants struck a CBP vehicle in their own car, then drove away. Agents then pursued the vehicle, ending in a car crash.

The crowd that formed quickly after the crash grew violent, according to Harvick, throwing “eggs, bricks, metal objects … I know one officer was struck in the head with an egg.” He also said the tires were slashed on two CBP vehicles and the rear window of one was broken.

In addition to the crowd’s negative response to immigration agents, Harvick said CBP needed the crowd to disperse as the accident was an active crime scene that needed to be preserved for investigation. Agents deployed tear gas three times because “the totality of circumstances” meant “it was becoming an unsafe environment” for agents, Harvick said.

Judge’s tone more muted

During the hours Ellis questioned Harvick and ICE Deputy Field Director Shawn Byers, the judge’s tone was far more muted than her tenor with Department of Justice attorneys last week. During Thursday’s emergency hearing, Ellis said, “The field director is going to explain to me why I am seeing images of tear gas being deployed and reading reports that there were no warnings given before it was deployed.” She was similarly stern in a virtual hearing Friday.

Ellis did become animated when she asked Harvick about an incident mentioned in a Chicago Tribune article published Sunday evening about Mt. Prospect residents interrupting a CBP operation. Just west of Mt. Prospect, in Rolling Meadows, a federal agent was seen pointing a weapon out of a truck window toward members of the public, according to the story.

“I guess what concerns me is an agent pointing a weapon at bystanders from an open window of a truck going by,” the judge said. “You could understand how I might be concerned, right? That might be a use of force that is not commensurate with any threat that the agents are getting from people passing by.”

Ellis also asked why immigration agents have often been photographed wearing bananas over their faces. After suggesting the fabric could mitigate tear gas, Harvick said it was to protect their identities.

“Mostly, your honor, it’s for doxing cases we’ve experienced for agents or their families,” he said.

Part of Ellis’ Oct. 9 order requires immigration agents equipped with body cameras to have them turned on during enforcement activities. But Monday’s hearing made clear that only CBP agents have body cameras; Byers told the judge that none of the ICE agents assigned to the Chicago area do. Under the Biden administration, Congress had started funding a program to equip all ICE agents with body-worn cameras, but the effort stalled after only two of the nation’s 25 field offices began using them, Byers testified.

Broadview clashes

Ellis asked Byers to take her through some of the clashes between immigration agents and protesters outside of ICE’s processing center in Broadview, which has been the scene of daily protests since Operation Midway Blitz began last month. Though attendance has been minimal on some days, when crowds have swelled, agents have deployed tear gas and pepper balls.

Byers said he hasn’t seen internal ICE reports about use of force on Broadview protesters, but he did challenge the “version of events circling on social media” about the Rev. David Black getting shot in the head with pepper balls on Sept 19. Black is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that resulted in Ellis’ TRO.

“So you believe that the video or the photographs that have been distributed about that individual … that those images have been edited?” the judge asked.

“What’s not being shown is he was given multiple commands to remove himself from the property,” Byers replied.

He also said Oct. 3 was the last time agents deployed tear gas in Broadview.

Ellis extended her temporary restraining order until Nov. 6, the day after a hearing to change the order to a preliminary injunction. Before then, the civil rights and media attorneys who filed the lawsuit will depose three more Department of Homeland Security officials, including CBP Commander Greg Bovino.

Harvick told the judge unequivocally that that Bovino was in charge of Operation Midway Blitz. But Byers said ICE and CBP are “running parallel but independently”

“Siloes would be the best way to describe it,” he said.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The post Immigration officials seek to justify use of force on Chicago-area protesters first appeared on SJO Daily.

The U.S. Coast Guard finalized the sole-source contract with Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation on October 15, 2025, for two G700 jets—aircraft that Gulfstream markets as having “the most spacious cabin in the industry.” The purchase exceeds the Coast Guard’s original budget request of $50 million for a single replacement aircraft presented to Congress earlier this year.

Acting Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Kevin Lunday defended the acquisition as essential for modernizing command and control capabilities. “The timing of this investment underscores the Coast Guard’s vital need to modernize its command and control capabilities to meet today’s rapidly evolving operational demands,” Lunday stated in a Coast Guard press release.​

The DHS characterized the purchase as “a matter of safety,” noting that the department’s current Gulfstream CG-101 G550 jet is over 20 years old and “well beyond operational usage hours for a corporate aircraft.” The Coast Guard reported that its long-range command and control aircraft experienced 30 days of unplanned maintenance since January 2025, resulting in six mission cancellations.​

At a press briefing Monday, Noem dismissed Democratic concerns, stating: “These aircraft are for the Coast Guard to replace planes that are 25 years old and necessary for the Coast Guard to do their mission. Congress appropriated the dollars and paid for them in the big, beautiful bill, and we’re grateful that we’re able to move forward.”

The aircraft are officially Coast Guard assets, purchased through Coast Guard procurement, maintained by Coast Guard personnel, and operated as part of the Coast Guard’s Long Range Command and Control Aircraft (LRCCA) program. The Coast Guard has operated executive transport aircraft for over 65 years, dating back to 1963. 

According to the official Coast Guard, these aircraft are “required to provide official travel” for a specific list of officials:​

• Secretary of Homeland Security (Kristi Noem)
• Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security (Troy Edgar)
• Commandant of the Coast Guard
• Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard
• Atlantic and Pacific Area Commanders

This list is mandated by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policy and DHS regulations.

The purchase has drawn criticism from congressional Democrats, particularly regarding the funding source and timing during a government shutdown when Coast Guard personnel faced uncertainty about receiving paychecks. However, Coast Guard personnel were eventually paid during the shutdown through special arrangements.

Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, and Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), ranking member of the homeland security subcommittee, sent a letter to Noem on October 18 demanding clarification. “The procurement of new luxury jets for your use suggests that the USCG has been directed to prioritize your own comfort above the USCG’s operational needs, even during a government shutdown,” the lawmakers wrote. “We are deeply concerned about your judgment, leadership priorities, and responsibility as a steward of taxpayer dollars.”​

Democrats note the purchase occurred during a government shutdown and question why two jets were purchased when only one was initially requested.

Representative Bennie Thompson, the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, called for an investigation, stating such expenditures are “outright immoral—and likely illegal—and Congress must look into this matter.”

The jet purchase adds to mounting scrutiny of Noem’s spending patterns both during her time as South Dakota governor and since assuming her role at DHS.​

An Associated Press analysis in March 2025 found that South Dakota taxpayers subsidized more than $150,000 in expenses tied to Noem’s political and personal travel while she served as governor, including trips to support President Trump’s campaign. These expenses included $7,555 for airfare on a six-day trip to Paris for a conservative speaking engagement, costs from a bear hunting trip to Canada with her niece, and $2,200 for dental work in Houston.​

During her governorship, Noem also spent $68,000 in taxpayer funds redecorating the governor’s mansion, including new rugs, chandeliers, and a sauna installation.

Since becoming DHS secretary, Noem has faced additional criticism for living rent-free in Quarters 1, a waterfront residence at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling typically reserved for the Coast Guard commandant. A DHS spokesperson stated the arrangement was temporary and necessary due to security concerns after Noem was “doxxed.” Previous Cabinet secretaries who lived on military installations, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during Trump’s first term, paid rent for such accommodations.

The Washington Post also reported that by mid-July 2025, Noem had utilized Coast Guard jets for travel to South Dakota at least nine times. Following this reporting, a DHS spokesperson stated Noem reimbursed the government “tens of thousands of dollars” for personal travel on the government aircraft.

The purchase comes despite the Coast Guard taking delivery of a new Gulfstream G550 (C-37B) in 2022 specifically for use by DHS senior officials and Coast Guard leadership. That aircraft, designated CG-102, was acquired through an existing Air Force contract and outfitted with Coast Guard-specific communications and security equipment, with an expected service life of 20 years.

Democrats have requested detailed documentation by October 30, 2025, including the funding source, delivery timeline, internal analysis comparing alternatives, names of officials who authorized the purchase, and formal justification for awarding the sole-source contract to Gulfstream.

The post DHS Purchases $172 Million Private Jets for Noem During Government Shutdown, Drawing Congressional Fire first appeared on SJO Daily.